An argument in favor of power in society

The Southern Argument for Slavery Southern slaveholders often used biblical passages to justify slavery.

An argument in favor of power in society

The author is professor of biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. This article is based on a presidential address presented before the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Utah State University, Logan, 25 June At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, Wiesner and York 1 concluded that: It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution.

If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation. An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution.

A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. In our day though not in earlier times technical solutions are always welcome.

Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment.

Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and, more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.

It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?

Muslim Beliefs About Sharia

Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it.

I can also, of course, openly abandon the game--refuse to play it. This is what most adults do. The class of "No technical solution problems" has members.

My thesis is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class.

An argument in favor of power in society

How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem--technologically.

I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe. What Shall We Maximize? Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially.

Is ours a finite world? A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite; or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed. When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind?

No--for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a theoretical one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two or more variables at the same time. The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, any organism must have a source of energy for example, food.

This energy is utilized for two purposes: For man, maintenance of life requires about kilocalories a day "maintenance calories". Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by "work calories" which he takes in.Thus he advocates that all members of society submit to one absolute, central authority for the sake of maintaining the common peace.

In Hobbes’s system, obedience . Psychological Egoism. Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives.

Suppose, for example, that Pam saves Jim from a burning office building. What . Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule by people"), in modern usage, has three senses - all for a system of government where the citizens exercise power by timberdesignmag.com a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body, and vote directly on each issue, e.g.

on the passage of a particular tax timberdesignmag.com a representative democracy . The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity.

Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state. That is, in a democratic society, power is taken away from those who abuse it.

Arguments for CSR: Economic Argument CSR is an argument of economic self-interest for business. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab serves writers from around the world and the Purdue University Writing Lab helps writers on Purdue's campus.

Purdue OWL // Purdue Writing Lab